CA Unpub Decisions

G.F. appeals the findings and orders entered at the dispositional hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code sections 360, subdivision (d) and 361, subdivision (c) and at a nonstatutory hearing. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, she asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.
In In re Sade C., the California Supreme Court held review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 is unavailable in "an indigent parent's appeal from a judgment or order, obtained by the state, adversely affecting [her] custody of a child or [her] status as the child's parent." (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 959.) We therefore deny her requests to review the record for error and to address her Anders issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.) The appeal is dismissed.

A jury found defendant guilty of making criminal threats (Pen. Code, 422)[1](count 1), assault with a deadly weapon ( 245, subd. (a)(1)) (count 2), and brandishing a weapon ( 417, subd. (a)(1)) (count 3). As to count 1, the jury found true the allegation that defendant personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon during the commission of the offense. ( 12022, subd. (b)(1).) The court found true the allegations that defendant suffered a prior serious felony conviction ( 667, subd. (a)), which also qualified as a prior strike conviction ( 667, subds. (c), (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). The court sentenced defendant to state prison for a term of nine years.
Defendant contends (1) the trial court erred by not conducting a full and fair evidentiary hearing concerning an allegation of prosecutorial misconduct; (2) the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct by tampering with key witnesses; and (3) the trial court erred by denying defendants request to instruct the jury on the law of self-defense. Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant Ronald Michael Chiles appeals from judgment entered following jury convictions for possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5; count 1) and transportation of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a); count 2). The trial court also found true the following enhancement allegations: defendant had two prior strike convictions (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (c) & (e)(2)(A), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(A)); one prison prior (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)); and a previous Health and Safety Code section 11351 conviction (Health & Saf. Code, 11370.2, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life in state prison.
Court reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant, a quadriplegic, of one count of possession for sale of cocaine base. The court sentenced him to the lower term of three years in prison. (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5.) Defendant challenges his conviction and his sentence. Court agree the abstract of judgment should be modified to state correctly defendants conviction for possession for sale of cocaine base rather than Selling Cocaine. Otherwise, Court affirm the judgment.

After several unsuccessful attempts to depose Jesus Rodriguez (Rodriguez), the plaintiff in an action against the County of San Bernardino, the San Bernardino Sheriffs Department and two individual sheriffs deputies, the trial court issued an order compelling him to comply with discovery. When that failed, a motion for terminating sanctions was filed and granted. Rodriguez appeals from the order granting the terminating sanctions, dismissing his complaint with prejudice. Court affirm.

The juvenile court summarily denied the minors maternal grandmothers (Grandmother) Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition requesting the minors be placed in her care. Grandmother contends the juvenile court erred by summarily denying her petition.[2] The minors also contend the juvenile court erred by summarily denying Grandmothers petition. Court affirm the order denying the petition.

John V., (minor) appeals from his commitment to the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) following his admission of a violation of probation respecting his original petition alleging manslaughter, and several subsequent petitions. The minor claims he is entitled to retroactive application of amendments to the statutory scheme governing commitments to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), Division of Juvenile Facilities, and that the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering the commitment because less restrictive alternatives were available and the minor would not benefit from a DJJ commitment. Court disagree and affirm.

An amended information was filed on February 7, 2007, alleging William Lee Fowler, appellant, committed attempted murder (Pen. Code, 664 & 187, subd. (a), count one),[1]assault with a deadly weapon ( 245, subd. (a)(1), count two), forcible rape ( 261, subd. (a)(2), count three), and false imprisonment by violence or menace ( 236, count four). Enhancements were also alleged for personal use of a deadly weapon ( 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and personal infliction of great bodily injury ( 12022.7, subd. (a)).[2] On February 23, 2007, the jury found Fowler guilty of all allegations.
On appeal, Fowler contends the trial court violated section 654 in sentencing him to concurrent sentences for false imprisonment and rape. Fowler further argues, and respondent concedes, that the abstract of judgment incorrectly states that his sentence on count four for false imprisonment was the midterm of four years rather than the midterm of two years imposed by the trial court.

Defendant Reynaldo Arnaldo Latre challenges his conviction and sentence for possessing a counterfeit $100 bill with intent to pass it or facilitate the passing of it. He argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove the offense. He further contends that the court gave erroneous jury instructions; wrongly refused to hear his personal statement and his attorneys argument at sentencing; and violated his Sixth Amendment rights as interpreted in Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 (Blakely) and Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 [127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham) by imposing the upper term. Court conclude there is no reversible error and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Paul Andrew Gonzales and two codefendants were convicted of possession for sale of methamphetamine and marijuana, based on large quantities of the drugs and packaging materials found during a search of their shared residence. On appeal, defendant contends there is insufficient evidence he had possession and knowledge of the narcotics found in the residence, the court should have given a unanimity instruction, and several pattern instructions prevented the jury from considering the absence of evidence linking him to the drugs. Court affirm.

Appellant Joshua C. was found to fall within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 by virtue of his commission of carjacking for the benefit of or in association with a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C), 215, subd. (a); count 1); vehicle theft for the benefit of or in association with a criminal street gang (id., 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A), Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a); count 2); evading an officer with willful disregard for safety, for the benefit of or in association with a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A), Veh. Code, 2800, subd. (a); count 3), and resisting arrest (Pen. Code, 148, subd. (a)(1); count 4). Joshua was ordered committed to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Juvenile Justice, but execution was suspended and he was placed on probation. He now appeals, claiming the juvenile courts findings were not supported by substantial evidence. For the reasons that follow, Court disagree and, accordingly, affirm.

Appellant, Michael A. Bustamante, was charged by an information filed March 6, 2007, with two felonies: vehicle theft (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)) and receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, 496d). It was also alleged in the information that appellant had suffered a strike[1]and that he had served a prison term for a prior felony conviction within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). The judgment is affirmed.

Following a contested jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court found true an allegation that appellant Dylan H., a minor, possessed a controlled substance without a prescription, in violation of Business and Professions Code section 4060 (section 4060).[1] Following the subsequent disposition hearing, the court placed appellant on six months probation pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 725, subdivision (a)). On appeal, appellant contends the People did not establish the corpus delicti of the instant offense independently of appellants extrajudicial statements and therefore the adjudication of that offense cannot stand. Court will affirm.

Petitioner, in pro. per., seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (rule)) from the juvenile courts order denying him reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code, section 366.26 hearing as to his three children, S., A. and C. Court conclude his petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of rule 8.452. Accordingly, Court dismiss the petition as facially inadequate.